+1 Well said!
So Clarence Darrow and Williams Jennings Bryant didn’t come up with that?
Guy Consolmagno is the Vatican expert on this stuff -
Consolmagno attended the University of Detroit Jesuit High School before he obtained his B.A. (1974), M.A. (1975) degrees at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. (1978) at the University of Arizona’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, all in planetary science. After postdoctoral research and teaching at Harvard College Observatory and MIT, in 1983 he joined the US Peace Corps to serve in Kenya for two years, teaching astronomy and physics. He believes in the need for science and religion to work alongside one another rather than as competing ideologies. In 2006, he said, “Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it’s turning God into a nature god.” God’s Mechanics: How Scientists and Engineers Make Sense of Religion http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Mechanics-Scientists-Engineers-Religion/dp/1118087313 Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist http://www.amazon.com/Brother-Astronomer-Adventures-Vatican-Scientist/dp/0071372318/ref=cm_cr_dp_asin_lnk
I know that’s meant to be tongue in cheek, but Augustine is one of the Fathers of the Church and probably the most important one. I don’t know if the Catholic Church *ever* made it doctrine that the world was created in seven 24 hour periods.
^People diss Catholism before realizing they’re speaking out of their ass. The Catholic church has been fairly accepting of science as far as religions go (it did take them until 1992 to apoligize to Galileo, but hey, nobody’s perfect).
It’s the evangelicals and fundamentalists that deserve the blame for things like Inteligent Design and Creationism.
What is “Catholicism”? Is it what the pope says, what the most progressive Catholic thinks, or what the median Catholic thinks? The church in Vatican City, of course, has been pretty slow to accept certain concepts, although Pope Francis has been very progressive as far as popes are concerned. However, if we utilize one of the other definition of Catholicism, then certainly, the answer would be quite different.
No need to get too deep. It’s essentially what the Pope says. Progressive Catholics find themselves in an Episcopal Church sooner or later. The average Catholic is certainly entitled to their own views, and they probably have an opinion on whether or not the church should change its stance on something. But ultimately they follow the man in the cool hat.
Thankfully there’s a pretty awesome pope right now.
The median Roman Catholic doesn’t set Church doctrine. Nor do priests. Major positions are set at Ecumenical Councils which include bishops, cardinals, and the Pope. These are pretty rare so the Church is naturally slow to address certain concepts. By and large, though, new concepts don’t necessarily need to be addressed since existing standards apply.
The outline of Catholicism can be found in the Catechism. Progressive or median Catholics who take their faith like a buffet and pick and choose what suits them are not Catholics at all.
Catechism:
Unfortunately, this is all too true of Christians in general. There are a great many protestants who like to believe only what fits their lifestyle. (e.g. the fact that churches are now starting to ordain homosexual ministers)
Why is that unfortunate? It’s caused many churches to be more accepting of things like gay marriage. Many Methodist churches in particular have realized they need to (wait for it) evolve or risk losing parishioners (and their money). I’m still trying to find a church that will stone men who wear wool-blend suits. Damn savages.
Yes, that is my point. Every Christian defines their faith differently, so any sort of discussion regarding how tolerant Christianity is will most likely be futile. It would be more productive to discuss which of SRK or Turd has more defined abs, or who would win if Superman fought Goku or the Hulk.
Jesus vs Shah Rukh Khan
Discuss.
A church isn’t there to support the latest sexual trend.
IMO religions impede scientific study into well being and other equally important matters. People always want to make friends how they don’t conflict and all that nice stuff, but they do. If you assume God away for a minute (be an economist here), then I find it’s pretty clear some religious structures are better at promoting “good” behaviors as opposed to “bad” behaviors. And there are some desirables attributes of many religions that probably have some deeper cause for those to arise. But because of God, these sorts of things are often deemed not under the purview of the scientific method because it is divine.
Are you actually suggesting that it’s wrong to hold scientists up to a moral standard?
- A church exists to preach to whomever will listen. 2) Homosexuality isn’t a trend. 3) Religion is fluid (well, about as fluid as molasses) and will adapt to secular social shifts. Some don’t and they risk losing younger members.
Make no mistake, organized religion is a business. Just like in our world, you have to adapt or you die.
Are you suggesting there’s no morality without religion?
The current gay movement is most certainly a trend. Obviously homosexuality has always existed, but it has only rarely been generally accepted by societies and even more rarely consecrated by social and state institutions like marriage.
Some denominations are definitely more “fluid” than others. But it’s misguided to assume that more rigid churches risk decline. After all, those “young people” eventually grow up. If your belief held, then we would expect to see a sharp rise in Episcopalian Church membership. Instead we see a stead decline over time.
No. That’s a complete non sequitor. Rawraw complained that religion impeded scientific inquiry. It *should* be impeded on certain issues. I doubt most people want to see modern world conducting a bunch of Nazi-like experiments. Unfortunately, it seems the more that people see people as chunks of meat, this idea becomes more amenable.